Where have I said I condone homophobia?

Putting word in my mouth here, this is how you get people into trouble, a bit of a habit of yours isn't it, especially with your history.

I know quite a few gay men, a couple I have the fortune of calling my friends, I have asked them if they or anyone they know would be offended if they were called a puff. None of them said "yes" - in fact one of them said "not at all... because I am a puff".

No.

But you're still starting your lines of reasoning from a position of presumed guilt.

... oh and while I think on, Jonathan Ross' house band were called Four Puffs and a piano. Do you think ITV would air a show with the house band being called Four N*ggers and a piano?

Gay men really don't mind being called puffs, well the ones I know don't at least.

Do you genuinely not see the difference between generic insults and insults that could potentially insult a specific group of people,i.e.discrimination?

To flip it around to Yellow Giraffe and others.

If Hardaker receives a not guilty verdict would you accept it as proof he didn't say it? Or would you think they either just haven't been able to prove it or they didn't want to shed bad light on the sport?

Even if you yourself can say honestly you'd accept a not guilty verdict you must admit that you know MANY others who do think he's guilty wouldn't accept it.

Don't get your point re Suarez? He admitted it was a bite. Zak hasn't

But does the word "puff" really discriminate against gay men? Has anyone else asked them because I have.

Thats some edit there

couldn't agree more. brough called bentham a f*cking cheating w*nker during a sky game this year. everybody watching heard it. the RFL ignored it, apart from a few posts fans ignored it.
that was far worse than calling someone a puff!

Shall we look at some other terms used in the English language to describe some groups in society?

No, i wont, i'll get banned, but you might think they are ok.

If he has found not guilty I would happily not say a word on the matter and move on.

I watched the game live and after the first viewing I immediately turned to the mrs and commented that he called Flanagan a puff. Having seeing the replays I do believe he said it.

However if he is found not guilty then it's case closed for me. That doesn't necessarily mean I'd believe he didn't say it though.

Again you are trying to make me out to be something I'm not, your track record really coming through here.

We're talking about the word "puff", don't try and introduce a different element to the argument... then try and tar me with said element.

Well there you go right there



Either way now due to the cack handed dealing of it neither result is going to convince many to change their original opinion.

Even if it's a not guilty verdict I admit that doesn't 100% prove that he didn't say it.

If he's being investigated for calling Flanagan a puff then whether he's found guilty or not of that he should surely be investigated for using the F word shouldn't he?

And I don't mind admitting that a guilty verdict doesn't prove he did say it either.

Unfortunately the RFL are in a dangerous position now in that they've set a precedent and I can't see them backtracking now they've said they are investigating.

What planet do you reside on Tad?

Do you seriously believe calling someone an effin cheating w****r is worse than homophobic abuse?

I'm not aware of any groups of people in the real world who suffer from discriminatory practices as a result of being classed as f*****s, cheats or w*****s or a combination of all three. Homosexuals OTOH do suffer from discrimination on a regular basis.

Not tarring you at all

Lets stick to the word supposedly used.

If true its wrong, and if it is true, not only wrong its his second time.

So if true a ban should be least of his worries.

I agree that a high percentage of homosexuals suffer, at some point, from discriminatory abuse but not really by the word "puff".

The point is more whether anyone was offended by what he said. If they were and he said what they thought, then a ban is the only course of action.

Even if he had said it and no one offended, then again it is poor handling from the game, to take further.

However, here what we have is no players heard it, you can't see or hear it on television this time (unlike at Warrington), and the only person who says he heard something( although he is not sure) is the ref, who actually didn't mention it until there was a campaign through social media to do so.

That is the main problems here.

I know a few wan***s who suffer discrimination. They enjoy their actions yet are persecuted if they enjoy themselves in public. Bang out of order if you ask me.

I've never felt discriminated to be honest, you can beat an egg.....

Not thought about it before, but just seen mentioned elsewhere.

IF Silverwood really did see or hear anything then surely it would be on his ref cam recording. If not, then surely this shows him up for the liar it now appears he is.

Isn't the ref cam just a camera? He was wearing a microphone, but one set up to hear him, not necessarily to pick up what happens in the background.

I think that might be a bit of a red herring.

It may depend on when somebody has had the bright idea to listen to the recording (if it is recorded). That's assuming that ref cam records audio.

It was ref cam that was used for the incident at Warrington. So no, it is more than a camera.